Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post-Wright Low

In the wake of the revelations about speeches made by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's numbers began to sink, both nationally and in individual states around the country. Some were quick to point to these numbers as proof of a significant and long-term shift away from Obama and to Hillary Clinton -- too quick, perhaps. Here's Gallup today:

Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)

Both Democrats have inched closer to John McCain in the latest update on registered voters' general election preferences. McCain holds just a two percentage point edge over both -- 46% to 44% over Obama and 47% to 45% over Clinton.

In the three days since March 18, the day that Obama delivered his Philadelphia speech on the issue of race, Obama has moved from a 49 percent to 42 percent deficit to a 48 percent to 45 percent lead -- a net shift of 10 points in just three days. While all of this could represent statistical noise -- Obama held a similar 48 percent of 45 lead as recently as March 15, one week ago today -- these numbers do seem to undercut the notion that Obama has become dead in the water as a result of Wright's rhetoric being exposed. I'd still like to wait to see some other polling confirm the clear trend found by Gallup, but it just might be that Obama's speech, as well as Bill Richardson's timely endorsement yesterday, might have turned the back the tide for Obama just over four weeks out from balloting in Pennsylvania and just over six weeks out from voting in North Carolina and Indiana.



Display:


Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 8)

Most people (like myself) can't help but to like Obama and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Does this mean he'll make a wonderful President? Not necessarily, but it doesn't mean Hillary will either.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:07:04 PM EST

For once I read BEFORE posting (2.00 / 8)

And it pays off on Comment #1! :)

The speeches and the endorsements probably are part of the explanation.  The other parts are generally overlooked (except by wiscogirl101 (but what else but wisdom is found in Wisconsin? (cheese (and the Packers (and snow!))))) Those being, time and thought.

Bottom line, does anyone think a black man grows to adulthood without a steeping in angry rhetoric?  Hearing others express their anger does not make one a disciple of that anger. Were that true, every single black American would be a ball of fury.

Clearly Barack Obama is not operating out of a desire to feed his anger.  He is aware of the anger and I am sure he extends a measure of sympathy to those made angry.  But he is obviously not in anger's thrall.

Sen Obama is in thrall to problem-solving. He comes across as a decent man.  With a week's worth of hindsight, common sense and the average American voter have reached the same conclution.  


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For once I read BEFORE posting (2.00 / 5)

I agree completely


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For once I read BEFORE posting (2.00 / 4)

I think you're right.  I think most people are good and fair. We have baggage and differences, but we also have a lot in common and a lot of serious issues that need addressing, issues that effect all of us.  

Obama reminded us of that, and people listened.  I believe the Democrats will win big in November, no matter who the nominee is.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

There's nothing to suggest that Clinton can possibly get the string of 60-40 wins she'd need to make this competitive again in the delegate race.

He has taken the hardest shots that the Vast Clinton Surrogate Conspiracy has to offer, and he's still standing and thriving.  And she just doesn't have the CoH to match what he's going to be able to do on field and GOTV in these next few states.


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

Lets keep things friendly. I'm an Obama supporter, and very happy with how he's weathered this storm. But there's no reason to imply that it was in any way the Clinton campaign's doing.


by noop on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

No reason?  You think these tapes just magically appeared thanks to the crack Fox News research team?  

And, also, all of the crap out of Penn's and WJC's mouths ...


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 3)

Come on!  Be a little rational.  Would you wait until yourself is far behind in the delegate count to do something like that?  I find it simply absurd that some people are so willing to think ill of Hillary Clinton while refusing to cast a tiny bit of doubt on Obama.  I also find it unbelievably offensive that some people would call the Clintons are racists.  


by observer11 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:21:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

I'm not saying the Clintons haven't crossed the line before. I think they have, and that's how they lost my support. But no good can come of blaming them for this situation.

The fact is that the Wright thing would have popped up eventually, and this is really the best possible time. If it had hit earlier, it might have severely hurt Obama in the primaries. If it had hit later, it would have hurt him for the general election. As it stands, it hit in the biggest lull in the primary schedule--after he has the nomination cinched on delegates. And it's a month out from a contest that he was expected to lose anyway. This gives his campaign enough time to do damage control while inoculating against this in the general. Finally, he capped the week off with a major endorsement coup that's totally changed the media narrative.

The timing and expert handling of this situation turned it into a blessing in disguise. So, lets not dwell on unfounded accusations when we need to heal the party wounds and get our candidate elected in November.


by noop on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 1)

Actually, yes, I think they did. It's been in the media that there are highly questionable types of Wright for a couple months. There's no reason to attribute this to the Clinton campaign (and I don't mean that in a Clintonesque "there's no reason to believe that" sense).

There's no evidence for that and there's plenty of reason to believe this was FOX News doing their job.

There's plenty -- plenty -- of real stuff to blame the Clinton campaign before. Don't go blaming them for stuff it's highly likely they didn't do.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

Nah, I doubt it was the Clinton camp.  The timing's all wrong.  

A day or two before an election day would make sense, because he wouldn't have time to respond.  But a month before an election?  As good as his campaign has been, they couldn't have expected it to hold him down for THAT long.  

It hurt him, but I really don't think it came from the Clintons.


And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was McCain, and Hell followed with him.
by freedom78 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

The Obama campaign has known that Wright was a problem way back when the campaign started:

CHICAGO, March 5 -- The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of the popular Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and spiritual mentor to Senator Barack Obama, thought he knew what he would be doing on Feb. 10, the day of Senator Obama's presidential announcement.

After all, back in January, Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Wright if he would begin the event by delivering a public invocation.

But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation.

"Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack," Mr. Wright said in an interview on Monday, recalling that he was at an interfaith conference at the time. "One of his members had talked him into uninviting me," Mr. Wright said, referring to Mr. Obama's campaign advisers.

Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama's decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign's apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright's teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/pol itics/06obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin& amp;oref=slogin

Didn't Fox News buy those tapes from the church, by the way?


by skohayes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 13)

I think you mean Obama is toast and this race is over and he's a racist and everyone hates him and if he wins McCain will win 99% of the vote and the Democratic policy will be abolished.

I know this is true, because I read it in the diaries.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:09:11 PM EST

The London Times says the Opposite (none / 0)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3591359.ece

Barack Obama has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his pastor's inflammatory remarks and the issue has become a serious threat to his presidential ambitions, polls suggest.


by earthoat on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (2.00 / 3)

That article is based on the polls from earlier in the week.  This post is how they've come back for Obama.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (2.00 / 3)

There's now considerably polling and research specific to Wright and Obama's speech that suggests that this isn't nearly as "terminal" as the Clinton side was desperately hoping it was earlier in the week.

I believe this is the fourth or fifth thing that was supposed to be the nail in the coffin for Obama.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (2.00 / 2)

The Times of London, just like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post is a Murdoch-owned outlet. It should be trusted as no more a reliable source of news than its siblings.


by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The London Times says the Opposite (none / 0)

LOL! I hope you are being snarky. Otherwise, WTF?


by kitebro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

eh, I think had Hillary not underestimated Caucuses she would have been the nominee

so its less that he beat it, and more that Hillary made a strategic mistake.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:10:34 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 8)

yeah, Mark Penn, the strategic mistake.


by NvDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 7)

Most if not all of her advisors are just terrible and horribly overpaid.  You're right, she could have won this easily.

But her campaign was so arrogant to think they had it in hand, they failed to plan past Feb 5th both in terms of caucuses, fundraising....

And thats why she's behind. Its not fair to make the same comparison, but its not much different than Bush not planning past toppling Saddam.

Short sighted people (which Hillary was in this primary) tend to end up with egg on their faces.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 5)

Political Science professors make a living out of explaining campaigns... the efficacy and failure... both in the classroom and in books... This primary season will be a goldmine for them.

The nice thing is that, from a purely scholarly standpoint, the Obama campaign makes for a good study in how to run a campaign.  The bad thing is that the Clinton campaign is the opposite.  Obama is doing well as a result of his campaign... Clinton is doing well despite hers...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

sorry to disagree with you, really. but "..And that's why she's behind....they failed to plan past feb 5th...caucuses, fundraising".

i think she might be behind because voters believe that sen obama is a better candidate. the fact that she is behind cannot be blamed only on strategic problems.


by hueydixiepearl on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

i think strategic problems are what have done her in. Plain and simple. All clinton needed to do was put a ground game in caucus states and she's in the drivers seat today (or already the nominee). demographics say she might have won iowa, idaho, maine, colorado, nebraska, utah and so on and on with a strong ground game.
by alex100 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mark Penn IS the (2.00 / 3)

strategic mistake. A walking, muttering one. Something about insignificant this and that.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 6)

Gosh, and she only had, what, 6-7 years to prepare for this election, to study each state's rules, etc?  What would she do with a 3 AM call about something for which she's unprepared?


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

Exactly. This is an excellent opportunity to observe HRC and Obama looking at a situation and coming up with the right strategy. Judgement in action: HRC misjudged the situation in crucial ways, while Obama assessed it correctly and set up the right organizatino to tackle it. The latter is what we need in the White House.


by minordomo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 3)

Pretty tough to deny that.

Assuming FL & MI hadn't defected, or HRC had pushed for a revote early rather than trying to seat their voided elections, and on top of that she had contested the smaller/redder states (which are not all caucuses), she would probably be way ahead.

Which is probably why she was the presumptive front runner by a longshot before the race started. No one expected her to make strategic election errors. (Well... maybe Obama did?)


by mattw on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

6 weeks later and I still don't understand why she did those.  It was obvious back on Super Tuesday that it wasn't going to work.  How could her high paid strategy people not see what random folks on the Internet could?


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lesson of 2007 (2.00 / 2)

Maybe the most important lesson is that in an open primary, the presumptive front-runner at the beginning is wearing a big "kick me" sign--it is a very bad position to be in. It was instantly fatal to Dean, and kicked the crap out of Hillary. (The same rule worked on the Republican side, too, though they didn't really have a clear front-runner; the guy who was left for dead months ago turned out to be the biggest winner once the voting started.)

Lesson: Don't ever tell the voters who's going to win before anyone votes.


by Alice in Florida on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson of 2007 (2.00 / 1)

I agree totally. in fact, I'd extend it to being just simply the front runner. Obama has had his worse days when he's been considered the "front runner." New Hampshire did him a great favor. had he won Iowa and New Hampshire back to back, Hillary would have kicked out that Penn guy, retooled her campaign, called on her supporters, started the internet fundraising she didn't start until the thing was practically over, etc. etc. She would have also probably thrown the kitchen sink back then, rather than wait for Obama to run away with the thing. On well. There is still hope though. Much can happen between now and the convention.


by poserM on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson of 2007 (2.00 / 1)

Now the interesting question is: is the front runner status deadly because of public perception, or media treatment?


by mattw on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:39:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson of 2007 (none / 0)

bingo. media treatment, or mistreatment. the media certainly have a dog in this fight. ad revenue. they're making millions. i believe we will see the pendelum(sp) swing again and again before this is over.


by hueydixiepearl on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're exactly right (2.00 / 6)

Hillary had an overwhelming advantage and is losing because she made a series of major strategic mistakes, and Obama played the hand he was dealt almost perfectly.

Here are some other strategic mistakes: failing to get health care passed in 1992, failing to work well with the Democratically controlled congress of 1992, NAFTA, China, Iraq War vote, negative campaigning, no Plan B for Obama surviving past Feb. 5, expensive and incompetent advisors such as Mark Penn ...

What are some examples of strategic brilliance on Hillary's part?

Obama has been strategically brilliant at each stage of the game, even when faced with major obstacles. He's stayed calm, kept to the high road, and shown great foresight in planning and executing his campaign plan. He's consistently though many moves ahead and when he gets broadsided by something, he reacts calmly and convincingly.

This is the person I want answering that phone at 3:00 a.m. This is the person I want planning out an effective way to accomplish the goals that he, Hillary, and everyone here feel are so critical to the survival of this democracy. This is the person I want going one on one with John McCain and cutting through his phony media image to the dangerous and misguided fool that he really is. This is the person I want making the critical decisions in September and October that will decide not only the presidency, but the fates of many congressional, senatorial and state-level candidates. This is the person I trust to come through in the clutch.

Obama is Presidential.


by obsessed on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 2)

Obviously, whatever side gets a good poll a post will go up.  Frankly, we won't know anything until Pennsylvania votes and NC and IN shortly thereafter.  Probably, polls showing either one up at this point in the democratic primary aren't that relevant. The polls that matter are ones that measure independents and those up against McCain.


by MidwestTracker on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:12:37 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

But it's not just Gallup. Obama is ahead in five of the last six polls, with an average difference between Obama and Clinton http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (none / 0)

PA is tainted. Republicans are voting for Hillary. Just like Ohio and Texas. And they wouldn't vote for her in Nov. PA will only tell us how screwed up it is to have a Dem primary after the GOP has their nominee. If Clinton uses that for an excuse to keep this going, she has no principles.


by kitebro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 7)

Andrew Sullivan just posted the full Wright 9/11 sermon.  I'm going to place it below so you can see those quotes in context.  You may not like the sermon as a whole or you might.  But I think it's worth reading - and passing along for others to read -- it in full.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/03/the-wright-post.htm l
    "Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God's guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do -- paybacks.

   There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created.  And I want you to notice very carefully this next move.  One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.

   Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine:  [rising voice] "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks."[lower voice]  The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon.  How shall we sing the Lord's song?  If I forget the order ... The people of faith,  have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]--these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple,  burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents -- [low voice] the babies, the babies.

   Blessed are they who dash your baby's brains against a rock.  And that,  my beloved,  is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD.  We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents.  We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.

   Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes.

   Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don't lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, "Faith footnote."  [Voices: "Faith footnote"]

   [Begin faith footnote]

   I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday.  Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end.   He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) --a white man-- he pointed out-- an ambassador-- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.

   We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo.  Terrorism--we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear.  Terrorism.  We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel.  We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers  and hard working father.  [fullest voice]  We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child.  Blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks.

   [fullest voice]  We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living.  We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard working people --mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home.  [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.  Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians not soldiers.  People just trying to make it day by day.  We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant?  Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.

   America's chickens are coming home, to roost.  Violence begets violence.  Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

   [lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant.  Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised.  The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.

   Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days.  Turn back to your neighbor, and say, "Footnote is over."  [Voices:  "Footnote is over."]

   [End Faith Footnote]

   [Gentle voice]  Now, now.  C'mon back to my question to the Lord, "What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act.  I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

   I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey.  No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport.  On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the destinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn't even get her for Mr. Radford's father's funeral.  And I asked God, "What should our response be?

   I saw pictures of the incredible.  People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone-- no more.  Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping.  [plaintiff high voice]  And I asked the Lord, "What should our response be?" I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC.  But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world,  a different terror.   This is a different reality.  What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things.  Let me share them with you quickly and I'm gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.

   Number one:  The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father's death, God showed me that this  was a time for me to examine my relationship with God.  MY own relationship with God-- personal relationship with God.

   I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency?  It showed up in full force.  Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week.  I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week.  [inaudible]

   But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination.  But the Lord said, "How is "our" relationship doing Jeremiah?  How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately?  How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?

   This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God.   Is it real or is it fake?  Is it forever or is it for show?  Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do  for the sake of eternity?  [voice rising]  This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God -- self examination.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:12:55 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly (2.00 / 4)

This just goes to show that most important ideas are not capable of being communicated in sound bites.  

One of things I like the most about Obama is his even temper and thoughtfulness.  

Maybe some of those characteristics will wear off on our country if he becomes president.


by ruskin on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maaaaaaaybeeeeeee (none / 0)

having as one spiritual mentor an outspoken firely rhetorician has prepared Sen Obama to remain unfinching in the face of provocation?  Perhaps dogged if at times over-the-top challenge to the issues has helped Sen Obama think through problems from begining to end?  Has helped him appreceate the wisdom of hard work over the easy answer?

Just wonderin'.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Andrew Sullivan was a conservative (none / 0)

republican until he cried on TV after realizing his party wouldn't let him marry his male partner. His hatred for Hillary is like the vengance of one who gave up smoking and is intolerant of those who still do.


by laternighter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i've watched a number of the sermons in full (2.00 / 4)

and they are all moving and brilliant. i can see why Obama has so much respect for the man.


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 1)

Wow.  Thank you for posting.


by mady on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 3)

You're welcome.

You can read the Audacity to Hope sermon here http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html

This one is quite amazing.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 2)

While Obama supporters fall all over themselves extolling the campaign's "turnaround" following the Wright controversy (evidenced by a Gallup poll published today showing Obama up by three,) I'll just toss out a contrary poll from Scott Rasmussen that shows Hillary up by two -- a swing of three in her direction.

And that's not all.
On Saturday, Obama's favorable ratings slipped a little further--46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable.
The last time he was even close to this territory was November 20, 2007 when his favorables were at 44%, his unfavorables at 50%, and not a whole lot of people knew much about him.


by zane on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:39:17 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back Strongly from Post- (2.00 / 4)

I, for one, wont say that BO is out of the woods yet with the Wright situation.  But the magnificent speech does seem to have helped, as it should.  I agree with one of the previous posters that BO just has such a cool headedness about him, no matter how things are going.  This is definite plus.

CBS poll came out yesterday that shows 70% approval for BO on the speech.  70% do not feel that it will make a difference for them in the GE.  Of the 30% who do, half say that it will make them more likely to vote for him.  


by sbbonerad on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time (2.00 / 1)

Shall further erode that 30%.  Of course, there is a floor to that approval rating and it's not too terribly far below that 30%, probably.  We have a name for that floor and it's not parquet.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

rasmussen has consistently underpolled obama's (2.00 / 2)

support and oversold his "negatives."  he's no longer an outlier, there is clearly something wrong with his methodology.  there's not a single pollster out there that confirms rasmussen's findings.

gallup, otoh, has been confirmed by other pollsters consistently...


"From what I've seen in terms of organization and coordination, the Obama people have run a better campaign," said Larry Ceisler
by bored now on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gallup vs. Rasmussen (none / 0)

Very odd, as their other polling (Iraq and Senate races seem to be in line with other polls).

Maybe they're picking a more disillusioned electorate that's rejected both Obama and Clinton.

I will say Rasmussen might have a slight bias, but Scott nailed the 2004 election.  Could it be the turnout model?


by mikelow1885 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its a tie and has been since Feb 2. (2.00 / 2)

Take a look at this picture.  Its the Gallup tracking poll since Jan. 3.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008. aspx

We've been at dead even for seven weeks.


by dbrown04 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:47:36 PM EST

Re: Its a tie and has been since Feb 2. (2.00 / 1)

Did you mean this?


by poserM on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not exactly, but (none / 0)

If you follow my link and scroll down a bit you can see a longer time series that goes back to Jan 2.

But, can you tell me how you got that picture in your comment?  Enquiring minds want to know.


by dbrown04 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:53:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly, but (none / 0)

I used the img HTML tag. You can read about the various parameters at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.as p

Mine looked like this:
'&lt' img src="http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/0322 08DailyUpdateGraph1.gif" &gt

replace '&lt' and '&gt' with less then and greater than signs.


by poserM on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks. n/t (none / 0)


by dbrown04 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 2)

Nationally, Hillary Clinton now holds a very slight advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 44%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led Clinton by eight percentage points (see recent daily results).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

Even more importantly, Obama's Favorability-Unfavorability ratings have gone from 56%-41% a month ago to 46%-51% now, a swing of 20 points.

It seems to be Obama is still dropping like a stone.


by BigB on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:48:54 PM EST

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 2)

OMg stop this!

3 days ago we were linking Gallup  against rass. now its the reverse

if obama rebounds then what?

no one is going to decide the primary based on polls, otherwise it would have ended along time ago


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 4)

The Hillary campaign is now solely dependent on polls because their only argument now is that of "electability".

Which means, that since they failed to convince people not to vote for Obama based on the candidates' own merits, they're now relying on convincing them not to vote for Obama based on perceptions of whether other people may vote for Obama.

Hence attempts to use polls.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 2)

And what do you call Beaton's post?

You bet this election is about electability. We are supposed to win in November, remember? It's not a game that you stop half-way because you falsely claim you have the delegates to stop the election.

The Wright debacle - including his ineptness in responding to it (speech not withstanding) - has damaged him. More importantly, it's left him open to the vetting he has escaped in this process.

The ineptness includes the following. Delivering the speech in the morning so it could be picked apart for sound-bites during the rest of the day. Followed up by the typical white person - the gotcha photo with Clinton that only kept it alive in people's minds - and his seeming contradictions on Larry King.

Now we have seen a return to the hysteria by his surrogates. Bill engages in McCarthyism. Hillary is nothing more than Mamie Eisenhower.

This is the same crap that kept Obama from closing the deal in the first place. He couldn't control his people on going after Hillary on a incredibly vindicative basis. His fear of an actual election was apparent by his decision to stop re-votes in MI and FLA.  

All of that strengthens the argument that he is not electable in the fall.


by cath on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (2.00 / 4)

"And what do you call Beaton's post?"

Difference is that the Obama fans are relying on their candidate's pledged delegate and popular vote advantage -- not on polls that change day by day.

"You bet this election is about electability. We are supposed to win in November, remember?"

Yes, that means you ought be trying to boost the electability of your candidate by lending your voice on why he/she should be elected. Not on why the other Democratic candidate oughtn't.

Argue why Obama or Clinton should be the candidate because of such-and-such an issue and you end up increasing their electability on November as well.

When you argue instead that e.g. no sane individual is gonna vote on them, you are helping diminishing their electability -- by in essense insulting everyone who does vote for them, by making a big deal over issues you ought be trying to minimize, by focusing on the candidate's weakness and not on his strengths.

Electability is like a subatomic particle, you can't pretend to observe it without affecting it. But you still have the choice of HOW to affect it.

Instead of trying to increase Hillary's electability, the Hillary fans are now just trying to diminish Obama's. And the amusing self-referential thing is they're trying to diminish Obama's electability by arguing about his electability.

Well yeah, as I've said before, Obama proved his worth in a campaign by having defeated Hillary so far. For such a supposedly electable person with all the advantages of party mechanism and name recognition, Hillary screwed it up just fine.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

obama supporters are relying on... (2.00 / 2)

* the number of states won

  • the number of votes cast for him (and her)
  • the number of delegates elected by voters
  • the amount of (primary) money raised
  • the number of volunteers mobilized

otoh, hillary is relying on her name and her connections.  apparently, voters are supposed to be impressed...


"From what I've seen in terms of organization and coordination, the Obama people have run a better campaign," said Larry Ceisler
by bored now on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (none / 0)

Well, no. It won't be decided on polls, however I suppose it isn't suprising that the polls reflect the actual results.

In most polls, Obama has had a slight lead. That the same slight lead he has in delegates, popular vote....

So I'd say that the polls seem to be somewhat accurate, retroactively.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Today's RASMUSSEN shows Hillary is leading (none / 0)

BO typically polls not as well on the weekends. His supporters seems to be harder to reach by phone Fri-Sun.  


by sbbonerad on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have a question (none / 0)

Are tracking poll swings front page material?


by Coldblue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST

They Would Be If Hillary Leads (none / 0)

If it's Obama, not so much
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does it matter who leads? (none / 0)


by Coldblue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dunno (2.00 / 2)

we get tons of front page Hillary leads material. So you tell me.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell you what? (none / 0)

I asked a question.


by Coldblue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it was a rhetorical (2.00 / 1)

question. The point I was making is that Poll leads for Hillary has become standard material for ront page. NO reason why it woudl not be the same for Obama.

Its a slow news day...so I guess they want to put up something.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have a question (none / 0)

Not if your candidate is currently losing.


by Cleveland John on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have a question (none / 0)

Answer: Not this far out, it's more important to look at the trend of the poll.  It shows Obama clawing his way back up after the hit he took from the Wright video.  I like the Rasmussen tracking poll, it's a four day moving average.  More accurate for tracking 'events' and their comeback (or non-comeback).


by NvDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have a question (none / 0)

Not at all times, but at a point like where we are now, where we're waiting to see the blowback from a scandal, it's definitely news, and I'm trying to keep up with it.


by vcalzone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

christ. (2.00 / 2)

i think you should stop being petulant.


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:12:13 PM EST

Re: christ. (none / 0)

Ah --- what a mature remark.

By I suppose in your world petulance includes that nasty little thing called facts to the contrary.


by cath on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nope. (2.00 / 0)

just being a dick.


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

im not an "obama blogger" (none / 0)

im a kucinich blogger.


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

scratch that (none / 0)

im a vermonter.


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: scratch that (none / 0)

you too?  whenever people say stuff like this, just tell them either
A) i'm a contrarian (we all are in one way or another)
or

B) TUGWOS.


just callin' em' as i sees em. I'm a whale biologist.
by Doug Tuttle on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1777-1791 (none / 0)

the second republic will rise again.


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh. (2.00 / 2)

As a front-page blogger and myDD steward, I think you have a responsibility to be more balanced.
Tell Jerome and Todd. :)


by Adam B on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:15:49 PM EST

Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 1)

I think it's worth pointing out that Obama's slip in the polls over the past week has been due to one thing, and one thing only--  the Pastor Wright flap.  Hillary Clinton has done absolutely nothing to advance her candidacy.  She spent a good part of the week wandering around Michigan, grumbling about Party rules and delegate allocation.

This is more evidence that her campaign advisors just don't get it--  If you are running for the Presidency, it's a good idea to act Presidential.
Standing around and letting your surrogates pound your opponent with a five year-old video tape of a preacher doesn't put you on the road to the White House.

Under difficult circumstances, Obama stood up and spoke to the nation about a challenging topic.  He followed that up with a major foreign policy address, and then won the endorsement of an important Governor and former Clinton ally and confidant.  No wonder he is regaining lost ground.


by global yokel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:17:34 PM EST

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

Richardson, an important governor?

Someone whose campaign tanked. Someone who never stood up for David Iglesias during the US Attorney hearings. Someone who didn't have the courage to endorse Obama prior either his state or (even) Texas' election. Someone who ran an election ad that referred to Hillary as a slut in Spanish (even Edwards went after him for it).

Oh, okay. Wow, what a great endorsement.


by cath on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 1)

sigh you ignore what he represents

he got 2 cabinet posts from Bill, 2 of them, he is close with the clintons, Bill spent the superbowl with richardson trying to GET this endorsement

and even after the Wright scandal he still comes out for Obama, you really think he is the last one?

and remember its Hillary's campagin that doesnt want SDs endorsing they want them to do a wait and see (they are hoping he will implode before they pessure her out of the race)

but if Richardson didnt wait and endorsed its a sign, that the SDs are getting restless with this fighting and want a Nominee and will break to the leader.

Hillary wants more time to GET in the lead, so that they will break for her, but without a redo in FL/MI its a hard case to do


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

Yes, Bill Richardson is close to the Clinton's who really helped his career.  His endorsement of Obama tells you what kind of person he is.  Bill Richardson is for Bill Richardson.


by laternighter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 4)

This is sour grapes, IMO.

Bill Richardson was such an important endorsement that Bill Clinton tried wooing him on Super Bowl Sunday. Apparently the Clintons kept trying to get his endorsement after that.

Now that Richardson has endorsed Obama...he's 'not important'?

I wish people would stop taking their talking points from Mark Penn. It's embarrassing, and most people are smarter than that.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A man who is also known for (none / 0)

grabbing his crotch in front of female colleagues.  Just a joke, ha ha, you know.  What a creep.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 2)

Don't be bitter. Had Richardson endorsed HRC, we'd have had 10 recced diaries up telling us how he was reinforcing Hillary's "experience" and how the Wright "story" meant that Obama was unelectable (REZKO!! anyone? Memba him?).

When Murtha endorsed HRC, the Obama camp didn't belittle him. It's hard when your candidate is losing. I understand. Just don't attack Richardson for following his conscience; please. We are all rooting for America here in the end.  


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 2)

Don't think other superdelegates aren't paying attention to Penn and Carville on Richardson.  And I can't imagine it makes them think the Clintons respect them either.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 0)

The Obama camp didn't have to bad-mouth Murtha.  They had DailyKos and the Obama shills to do it for them.


by stefystef on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

When did the Clinton campaign badmouth Murtha? I heard bloggers do it, and quite wrongly, in my view.  But the Clinton campaign? If you could provide a link, I'd be most obliged. Thanks.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (none / 0)

Proof?  Links?

Thought not.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Wright Low (2.00 / 0)

Hillary has done A LOT during this week... many rallies and town meetings in PA and IN.  Bill was in NC.  Hillary polls numbers are very strong in those states.  Hillary's been working hard.  Just because the TV camera wasn't on her everyday, again, marginalizing her as usual.

Hillary didn't need to comment on the Wright debacle.  That is Obama's problem and should stay Obama's problem.


by stefystef on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm petulant and I'm having a frenzy (2.00 / 0)

Illinois Enema Bandit -Frank Zappa
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:26:33 PM EST

all those college educated women. (2.00 / 0)

two things.

1) Obama/Zappa 08
2) I will defend anything you say from here on out, Zappaphiles unite!


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He Got Just What They All Need (1.00 / 1)

The Illinois Enema Bandit, I heard he's on the loose. I heard he's on the loose. Lord, the pitiful screams... Of all them college-educated women. He just be tyin' 'em up... They be all bound down. He just be... Pumpin' every one of 'em up with all of a bag full of... Illinois Enema Bandit Juice. The Illinois Enema Bandit, I heard it on the news, I heard it on the news..... (Apparently this song was structured on some classic blues formulas. God bless you Ray White!)
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

08 (2.00 / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aofsozIV GQ


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Having a Frenzy (2.00 / 0)

Actually that's from "Don't You Want A Man Like Me."
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't this line from (none / 0)

Titties and Beer?

Oh shit I am old!  I can't remmeber.

But I thinkI can still recite Evelyn, A Modified Dog from Memory.  So that's sopmething.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Obama Bounces Back (2.00 / 5)

There has indeed been a turnaround since Tuesday, but it will be next week before we have a better sense of whether this is behind BO (for now).  It will come up again in the GE.

I started out neutral in this race, but have become increasingly turned off by the Clinton campaign.

The stance about voter disenfranchisement in MI and FL is just so disingenuous.  Candidates signed a pledge card affirming their knowledge that the vote wouldn't count.  People turned out anyway because of important down ballot issues.

My hope is that this ends soon--I do not want to see President McCain come next Jan.


by TRH3 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:28:02 PM EST

WHO is disingenuous? Obama ran (none / 0)

campaign ads and made appearances in FL, a state in the same position as MI.

And do you have ANY idea why Obama removed his name from the MI ballot but not the FL ballot?  Give that some thought.  Look it up.  Better yet, ask him.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he was not (2.00 / 3)

allowed to remove his name because of a Florida law.

The only way to remove your name from the ballot in Florida is to drop out from the general election.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok that makes sense. So ... for (none / 0)

symmetry's sake, why not just leave your name on the MI ballot as well?  


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

because (2.00 / 5)

he pledged not to compete and not to participate in there. So did all the other candidates.

In fact Hillary, by keeping it on the ballot violated the spirit if not the letter of the pledge.

Symmetry sake? Thats a good reason...????


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yep, we are attacking obama for keeping his word.. (2.00 / 2)

it is amazing what the clintons can do to normal standards of conduct...


"From what I've seen in terms of organization and coordination, the Obama people have run a better campaign," said Larry Ceisler
by bored now on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

.....And obeying the rules (2.00 / 1)

Someone who says if you obey the rules and keep your word then you deserve whatever you get, well that person is a sociopath.
by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because (none / 0)

The "spirit of the pledge" was idiotic. It's one thing to penalize the states that went early by cutting their delegations in half as provided in the rules, quite another for the DNC and candidates to have been falling all over themselves to kiss the feet of the designated early primary states. The demand that candidates take their names off the ballot so Michigan voters wouldn't even have a chance to register their preferences was arrogant and idiotic.


by Alice in Florida on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so the (2.00 / 3)

question is why did she then pledge not to compete and PARTICIPATE in those primaries.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on